A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

of cod and hake. The Commission will be ableto ask that particular sources of information areused including commercial, trade and tax dataand Commission inspectors will be able to participatein the inquiries.This is a key initiative and something that is tobe anticipated within the Baltic. At the time ofwriting it had apparently not been decided whensuch a request will be made. It was not possibleto gauge the level of detail or the extent to whichthe Commission anticipates being involved inthese inquiries. However, it would seem prudentto ensure limited warning is given to those thatmight be involved in the trade of un<strong>report</strong>edlandings; that the level of participation by theCommission is high; and, that appropriatelyqualified and skilled investigators are used toundertake a task that is, potentially, beyond thenormal capabilities and expectations of fisheriesinspectors who are more accustomed to dealingwith fishermen, fishing vessels and other fisheriesinspectors than trade and tax data.Redirecting EU inspectorsTo ensure that the Commission is able to bestdirect its limited inspection resources to this newway of working, Commission inspector time inRFO fisheries will be freed up and the shortfallwill be made up by inspectors from the MemberStates benefiting from these fisheries. This hasalready happened within the NAFO region. Also,as indicated above, in order to ensure that it ismore able to effectively carry out these areasof work, the Commission is in the process ofappointing a further 29 Commission inspectors.These will be based in Brussels and will be taskedwith developing, undertaking and evaluatingmonitoring programmes in all the coastal MemberStates.Ensuring there is a deterrentMember States are required to have systemsthat will deprive offenders of any financial gainfrom their actions and also act as an appropriatedeterrent. When Member States fail to complywith these requirements, the Commission is ableto improve the level of compliance by suspendingfinancial assistance, invoking preventive measuresand reducing future fishing opportunities.As regards preventive measures, as a first stage,the Commission envisages using this instrumentprimarily in relation to “black fish” concerningvulnerable stocks such as cod and hake.These appear to be appropriate and effectivemeasures. However, the time and human resourcesneeded to undertake such action areconsidered likely to act as more of a deterrent forthe Commission than the Member States. It wasonly after 15 years of political and legal wranglingthat France was finally penalised last yearfor overfishing. It is not clear how or why theprocess for penalising Member State judicial oradministrative systems for inappropriate deterrentswill be any easier or quicker.In addition to what the Commission may havein their “deterrent armoury”, Article 25(4) of thereformed CFP (EC Reg. No. 2371/2002) saysthat the Council will establish, “…a catalogue ofmeasures to be applied by Member States relatingto serious infringements…”. The Commissionand others have regularly highlighted thatappropriate deterrents are either not used or arenot consistently applied, and so this was seen bymany as a positive move toward establishing away by which Member State judicial and administrativesystems could accordingly set penalties.However, during the course of the discussionswith the Commission staff they said that theywould delay the development of such a catalogueand first focus on making the existing transparencyelements of their Work Plan (i.e. the SeriousInfringement Report and the Compliance Scoreboard)more meaningful and effective (see page37). This would not likely happen until 2007.Community Fisheries Control AgencyThe following is based on a summary from CommissionCOM(2003)130 21 , Commission staffworking paper SEC(2004)448 22 and the CouncilRegulation 23 that confirmed the establishmentof the Community Fisheries Control Agency(CFCA) – ’’the Agency’’.The setting up of the Agency was agreed by theCouncil of Ministers in April 2005 and preempteda feasibility study that the Commissionhad already put out to tender with the intentionof informing the Agency’s establishment.The Regulation confirms the objective of theAgency is “…to organise operational coordinationof fisheries control and inspection activitiesby the Member States and to assist them tocooperate so as to comply with the rules of theCFP in order to ensure its effective and uniformapplication”.– 32 –